https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6668
John Hardin <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #5 from John Hardin <[email protected]> 2011-10-03 18:55:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > I would personally veto this immediately. We are not an advertising > > > service > > > for RBLs. > > > > I find that statement kind of interesting, when shutting off network tests, > > many of which require payment over some threshold (often around 100,000 > > hits a > > day), makes SpamAssassin five times less accurate. > > IMO, ANY provider that gives FALSE positives under any circumstances should > not > be configured to be enabled by default with SA. > > I have zero problem with them stopping their replies and zero problems with > them charging for heavy usage. If the RBL provides a documented "You are overusing the free service" return code, what is the problem with recognizing that and hitting a non-scoring (0.001, neither FP nor FN) rule with an informative description? It doesn't need to contain a link to the RBL's TOS or subscription page (advertising), but telling the admin _why_ they're getting an unusable response from the RBL is polite. I think that's a much better approach than either removing one of the most effective antispam techniques by default, or having the RBL suddenly mark _everything_ as spam because we don't interpret the "overuse" code correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
